Preoperative walking intervention did not appear to improve patient-reported postoperative recovery in older adults with frailty traits: Randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a preoperative walking intervention on improving postoperative recovery in at-risk frail older adult patients. STUDY TYPE: Unblinded, randomized controlled trial which assigned patients to intervention versus control. POPULATION: Patients aged 60+ scheduled for surgery 3-8 weeks from randomization scoring 4+ on the Edmonton Frail Scale. INTERVENTION: Preoperative walking enhanced by goal setting with an activity monitor and telephonic coaching. MAIN OUTCOMES: Quality of Recovery 9-item instrument total score and a modified version of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale total score. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were analyzed. Postoperative recovery scores were similar in intervention vs control - Quality of Recovery-9 item instrument total score 14.1 vs. 14.1 (P = .94) and modified Abdominal and Surgery Impact Scale total score 82.8 vs. 79.2 (P = .93). Few intervention patients met their daily step count goals. Despite this, intervention patients improved average daily step counts significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative walking bolstered with activity monitor and remote coaching did not appear to lead to improved postoperative recovery in older adults with frailty traits. Further research is necessary to see if a similar intervention in specific surgery types or a more intense version of the intervention can improve recovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".